Cosmological and Ontological Arguments, Essay Example

Arguments for the existence of god are made by various philosophers. These arguments can be either cosmological or ontological in nature. These two arguments are fundamentally different forms.  The more appealing of the two is the ontological for various reasons.  This is due to the fact that the ontological argument simply requires the use of definitions and does not require the inclusion of notions of causality for it to make logical sense.

While the cosmological argument is predicated upon notions of the cosmos and requires the use of causality, the ontological argument relies upon notions of how ideas arise in the mind and the definition of God.  While these ideas may seem similar at the surface, they have fundamental differences.  The main disparities between the ontological and cosmological arguments are the notions of causality and the definitions used in applying the arguments.

The cosmological argument is based upon an understanding of the term cosmology.  The idea of cosmology has to do the universe and its components.  This refers to how the universe is made up and what its fundamental parts consist of.  This conception of cosmology is used to form a logical argument for the existence of God.The heart of this argument has to do the fact that the world has being, and yet the reason for that being cannot be explained by the world itself. It relates to the idea of cosmology because it is rooted within the conception of reality.

According to Jeffcoat, this idea was further strengthened by St. Thomas Aquinas in his medieval exegesis.  His argument, which has come to be called his cosmological argument, relies upon the definition of contingency. The idea of contingency has to do with the finite nature of beings within the cosmological framework. While the universe itself is eternal, the beings within it are not.  Due to the fact that there is nothing within the universe to cause itself, there must be some sort of outside causality, that which the universe itself is contingent upon.

The ontological argument is based more upon a conception of ideas than of the cosmos.  It relies upon how the mind’s perception of a concept is viewed as well as the definition of God itself.  In this argument, the understanding of the idea of God itself becomes the argument for the being’s existence.  If there is an intuition that is named ‘God’ then logically, due to the definition of the term, it must exist.

According to Plantinga, the ontological argument can be best understood as a series of logical arguments.  First of all, God must be defined as ‘that which is greater than anything that can be conceived.’  With this in mind, if it assumed that existing in reality is greater than existing in the mind alone, then this conception must be attributed to God.  Due to the fact that god must be greater than any conception, God’s existence in reality must be the case, since the definition of God inherently requires God’s existence within reality.

I find the ontological argument is more appealing.  While the cosmological argument relies upon a notion of causation, the ontological argument relies more upon definitions.  Bringing up causation seems to cause more issues than is necessary.  In philosophy, the argument that has a simpler basis should be the one that is considered the more sound.  Furthermore, the ontological can be built upon, and provides a more diverse framework for supporting its case.

Works Cited

Jeffcoat, W.D. M.A. The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God. Apologetics PressApril 2014

Plantinga, Alvin. The Ontological Argument. Oxford University Press. April 2014